Appendices June 2015
Appendices
June 2015
Table of Contents
APPENDIX A – BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN LAWS, CODES, AND POLICIES APPENDIX B – FUNDING SOURCES AND COST INFORMATION APPENDIX C – IMPROVEMENT TYPES
Appendix ABicycle and Pedestrian
Laws, Codes, and Policies
Appendix A
A.1
PEDESTRIAN RIGHTS AND RULES
According to the Annotated Code of Maryland:
• Pedestrians are subject to all traffic control signals.
• The driver of a vehicle shall come to a stop when a pedestrian is crossing a roadway in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.
• A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into
the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
• If a pedestrian crosses a roadway at any point other than in a marked crosswalk or in an
unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, the pedestrian shall yield the right of way to any
vehicle approaching on the roadway.
• Between adjacent intersections at which a traffic control signal is in operation, a
pedestrian may cross a roadway only in a marked crosswalk.
• Drivers must exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
• Where a sidewalk is provided, a pedestrian may not walk along and on an adjacent
roadway. Where a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian who walks along and on a
highway may walk only on the left shoulder, if practicable, or on the left side of the
roadway, as near as practicable to the edge of the roadway, facing any traffic that
might approach from the opposite direction.
• In general, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a blind, hearing impaired,
or mobility impaired pedestrian.
BICYCLIST RIGHTS AND RULES
According to the Annotated Code of Maryland, a person riding a bicycle:
• Has the same rights and duties as a person driving a vehicle.
• May not ride on any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50
miles per hour or on an expressway.
• Shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, except when
making intersection movements, riding on a one-way street, passing, avoiding
pedestrians or hazards, or traveling in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a
vehicle to travel side by side (i.e. a signed shared lane or marked sharrow lane).
A.2
• Shall use the bike lane or shoulder (where there is a usable, smooth paved, no debris)
and may not ride on the roadway, except for intersection movements, and may not
leave a bike lane or shoulder until the movement can be made with reasonable safety
and the only after giving an appropriate signal.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CODE
In Montgomery County, bicyclists may also ride on sidewalks.
According to the Montgomery County Road Design and Construction Code, Section 49-25:
Each transportation facility in the County must be planned and designed to:
a) maximize the choice, safety, convenience, and mobility of all users,
b) respect and maintain the particular character of the community where it is located,
and
c) minimize stormwater runoff and otherwise preserve the natural environment.
To achieve these goals, each County road and street must be designed so that the
safety and convenience of all users of the roadway system - including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, automobile drivers, commercial vehicles and freight haulers, and
emergency service vehicles – is accommodated. Each road and street must facilitate
multi-modal use and assure that all users can travel safety in the public right of way. A
specified quantity of stormwater must be managed and treated on- site, in the road or
street right of way, including through the use of vegetation-based infiltration techniques.
These contest-sensitive policies must be employed in all phases of facility development,
including planning, design, construction, and reconstruction.
Furthermore, according to the Montgomery County Road Design and Construction Code,
Section 49-29:
Bikeways and walkways must be constructed when any County road is constructed,
reconstructed, or relocated, unless the County Council finds (for a road improvement
authorized in a capital improvements program) or the Planning Board finds (for a road
improvement made a condition of preliminary plan or site plan approval) that bikeways
or walkways in that location would reduce public safety, would not be feasible, or would
be disproportionate in cost to their probable use. All bikeways and walkways must
conform to approved capital improvements programs and be consistent with area
master plans and transportation plans adopted by the Planning Board.
A.3
POLICIES
Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2011 (MUTCD)
This Federal Highway Administration publication is considered the
national standard for traffic control devices. The Maryland State
Highway Administration (SHA) has developed a state supplement of
this document which includes more specific interpretations and
requirements.
Accessibility Policy and Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities along State
Highways, June 2010 (MDSHA-ADA)
This policy and guide is the SHA’s interpretation of the American with Disabilities Act. According
to this policy, all SHA projects are developed to accommodate and provide accessibility for
persons with disabilities where it is reasonable, feasible and appropriate to do so. This
comprehensive guide provides designers with the tools to identify non-compliant pedestrian
features and guidelines for upgrades.
Bicycle Policy and Design Guidelines, January 2015 (SHA-
BDG)
With the SHA’s presentation of the policies in this document in 2013,
implementation of these guidelines on state roads can now be
considered standard practice.
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012, 4th
Edition (AASHTO-BDG)
This document, published by the American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials and commonly referred to as the AASHTO
Bicycle Design Guide, is recognized and referred to by roadway
engineers for planning and design of bicycle facilities, except where
preceded by jurisdictional requirements.
A.4
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, April 2011 Edition (NACTO-
UBDG)
This progressive document, published by the National Association of
City Transportation Officials, is a relatively new planning resource that is
quickly gaining traction with bicycle advocates, urban planners, and
designers alike. Guidance in the NACTO-UBDG is applicable in urban
districts, but can be extended into suburban settings, as well.
Montgomery County has recently implemented projects -- protected
cycle tracks, bike boxes, and the “green paint” treatments –
incorporating guidance consistent with the NACTO-UBDG. It is
important to note that this document is not a formally adopted policy
in the county. Specific treatments should be approved on a case-by-
case basis.
Appendix B
Appendix BFunding Sources
and Cost Information
B.1
FUNDING SOURCES
According to the Maryland Department of Transportation’s Maryland Twenty-year Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan, January 2014, there are number of funding sources available for
improvements including:
• Transportation Alternatives Program (Federal grants, SHA-administered, $11 million per
year)
• National Recreational Trails (Federal grants, SHA-administered, $1 million per year)
• Maryland Bikeways Program (State grant, MDOT administered, $3 million per year)
• Maryland Bikeshare Program (State grant, $1 million to Montgomery County in FY2013)
• Sidewalk Construction (State fund, $34.4 million over the next six years)
• Sidewalk Reconstruction / ADA upgrades (State fund, $79.1 million over the next six years)
• Bicycle Retrofits (State fund)
• Community Safety and Enhancements (State fund, $134 million over six years)
Appendix C
Appendix CImprovement Types
August 2015 C.1
Sidewalks Construction/Reconstruction
Commonly, existing sidewalks were constructed for single file pedestrian use and do not meet
minimum width requirements for MCDOT (4 ft minimum) and SHA (5 ft minimum). Older sidewalks
with gaps in connectivity are considered higher priority for replacement than sidewalks which
serve lower pedestrian volumes and are in good condition. Also, in locations where obstacles
limit the width of a sidewalk, such as the location of a utility pole, the obstacle should be
relocated or the sidewalk width should be increased to provide a minimum 3-ft passing width,
per ADA standards.
Figure 1 – Example of ADA-
Compliant Sidewalk, 4-ft min. width
Figure 2 – Example of Non-Compliant
Sidewalk
Figure 3 – Best Practices for Sidewalk
Design
Figure 4 – Example of ADA-
Compliant Sidewalk at Horizontal
Obstruction, 3-ft min. width
C.2 August 2015
Shared-Use Paths
Shared-use paths provide a greater level of service and comfort to pedestrians and bicyclists by
providing a 10 – 14-ft wide asphalt surface, 1 – 2-ft clear width, lighting, and landscaped grass
buffers. An 8-ft width is acceptable where there are low pedestrian volumes and/or physical
constraints. An important distinction between shared-use paths and sidewalks is the absence of
obstructions, such as utility poles or street furniture.
Shared-use paths should be
planned and implemented
along major corridors and to
provide connectivity between
residential communities,
shopping centers, parks, transit
stops/stations, and other
existing shared-use paths.
Special emphasis should be
placed on connecting with
planned developments. By
improving the surrounding
areas walkability and
bikeability, the redevelopment
potential increases significantly.
Figure 5 – Example of Shared Use Path, Glenmont Greenway
Figure 6 – Best Practices for Shared-Use Path Design
August 2015 C.3
Figure 8 – Shared Roadway Signing Install sharrow markings at far side of intersection and 250 ft
intervals. Use W11-1/W16-1P sign assembly where lanes are <13 ft to
15 ft wide; use R4-11 where lanes are less than 13 ft wide.
Figure 7 – Example of
Sharrow Marking in Silver
Spring, MD
Figure 9 – Sharrow Marking
Shared Roadways
This improvement is the highest priority bicycle improvement.
Sharrows benefit bicyclists by clearly indicating to drivers their
responsibility to share the traveled way. Recommendations for
shared roadway improvements include the installation of sharrows
at the far side of intersections and at regular 250 ft intervals along
designated bicycle routes. Sharrow markings should be placed a
minimum 4 ft from face of curb. If there is an existing parking lane,
sharrows should be placed a minimum 4 ft from the edge of the
parking lane, to prevent collisions with opening car doors. For
narrow residential roadways, where vehicles alternate right of way,
opposing sharrow markings should be staggered and placed with
a slight offset from the centerline.
It is also recommended that “Bicycle Route”, “Share the Road”,
and “Bicycle May Use Full Lane” sign assemblies be implemented
along designated bicycle routes.
OR
W11-1 / W16-1P R4-11
C.4 August 2015
Figure 10 – Best Practice for
Sharrow Placement Adjacent to curb lane (top);
Adjacent to parking lane (bottom).
Figure 11 – Example of bicyclist riding next
to parking lane Bicyclists tend to shy away from parked vehicles
to avoid collisions with opening car doors.
August 2015 C.5
Bike Lanes
Bicycle lanes create an exclusive space for cyclists;
provide a buffer between automobiles and
pedestrians; and create a narrower space for cars
that may influence speeds downward. Bicycle lanes
can also be viewed as safety “clear zones” in the
sense that they introduce more space between the
motorway and vertical edge elements like curbing,
signs, utilities, and street trees. The major benefits
accrue to cyclists in that they are able to travel at
their preferred speed with minimal interference from
automobiles. Bicyclists can choose to use the bicycle
lanes or not, particularly when making left-turn
maneuvers that may necessitate crossing out of the
bike lane and into a left-turn lane.
The preferred width of a bicycle lane is six feet,
although narrower adaptations to accommodate
limited rights-of-way may create a four-foot bike lane.
The MdMUTCD notes that “if used [for marked bicycle
lanes only], Bike Lane signs and plaques should be
used in advance of the upstream end of the bicycle
lane, at the downstream end of the bicycle lane, and
at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane as
determined by engineering judgment based on
prevailing speed of bicycle and other traffic, block
length, distances from adjacent intersections, and other considerations.” In some circumstances,
colored pavements (green or red) or buffering may be considered to reinforce the presence of
bicycle lanes, notably where there are a number of commercial driveways that intersect
perpendicular to the bicycle lane, on-street parking, high truck volumes, or are located on
higher-speed facilities. Special attention at intersections is critical, particularly where turning
lanes or end-of-bike lane situations exist.
Figure 13 – Bike Lane on
Calverton Boulevard,
Montgomery County
Figure 12 –
Examples of Bike
Lanes Adjacent to curb
(top); Buffered Bike Lane (middle); Bike Lane adjacent to parking (bottom).
C.6 August 2015
Figure 15 – Bike Lane Markings
For 35 mph or less,min. width = 4’
Place markings (left) and sign
assembly (right) at far side of
intersections and every ½ mile.
Figure 14 – Best Practice for Bike Lanes at
Intersections
August 2015 C.7
Figure 16 – Example of One-way, Protected Cycle
Track
Figure 17 – Example of Two-way;
Protected Cycle Track along
Woodglen Drive, Montgomery County
Cycle Track
Cycle Tracks provide a buffered area between a bike lane and automobile traffic, typically with
some form of vertical separation created either by the relative height of the bike way itself or
through the use of markings and bollards or raised pavement. Cycle tracks can be either two-
way or one-way (on each side of a two-way street). There are many design considerations
inherent with cycle tracks, particularly as they interface with intersection crossings, on-street
parking, transit stops, pedestrian crossings, and commercial driveways. Locations with very high
right-turning volumes may be at a disadvantage for cycle track applications, since it can be
difficult to accommodate right-turn-only lanes into the design. The MdMUTCD is relatively silent
on design parameters, but the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide is a good resource
C.8 August 2015
Curb Ramp Construction/Reconstruction
The reconstruction of sidewalk curb ramps is easily justifiable based on ADA standards. Running
slopes, parallel to the direction of travel should be limited to 12:1, while cross slopes
perpendicular to the direction of travel should be limited to 48:1. The average cost for replacing
a sidewalk curb ramp is $1,000 per sidewalk curb ramp.
Figure 18 – Example of Non-Compliant Curb
Ramp
Figure 19 – ADA-Compliant Perpendicular
Curb Ramp 4’x4’ min. landing area with 48:1 cross slope; 12:1
running slope; detectable warning surface
Figure 20 – Best Practices for Curb Ramp
August 2015 C.9
Driveway Apron Reconstruction
The reconstruction of driveway aprons is also easily justifiable based on ADA standards. Running
slopes, parallel to the direction of travel should be limited to 12:1, while cross slopes
perpendicular to the direction of travel should be limited to 48:1. The average cost for replacing
a driveway apron is $1,000 per driveway. The average cost for replacing a sidewalk curb ramp
is $1,000 per sidewalk curb ramp.
Figure 21 – Example of Non-Compliant
Driveway Apron
Figure 22 – Example of ADA-Compliant
Driveway Aprons Source: MDSHA-ADA
Figure 23 – Best Practices for Driveway Apron Design
C.10 August 2015
Median Refuge
There are typically a number of locations that are suitable for median refuge installation. These can be located at intersections (most common) or used to narrow lane widths and pedestrian crossing distances at popular mid-block crossing points.
Ideally, median refuge areas should be designed with a 40-foot minimum length and a minimum six-foot width to accommodate bicycles and strollers without either one sticking out into the motor way. The curb opening should measure the full width of crosswalk, and may be aligned at an angle to orient pedestrians to look at oncoming traffic prior to crossing. Median refuges should include components such as curbing, curb ramps, detectable warning surfaces, crosswalk signing & marking, object markers, and/or bollards. An advance limit line should be placed 20 to 50 feet ahead of the crosswalk.
Figure 24 – Examples of Median Refuge Lockwood Drive (left) and Edson Lane (right), Montgomery County; Install with Signage
to promote driver awareness, R1-6a (top, right) and R1-6 (bottom, right)
Figure 25 – Best Practices for Median
Refuge
August 2015 C.11
Curb Extension
Curb extensions are another tool for both increasing the visibility of pedestrians prior to their crossing at an intersection, as well as decreasing the amount of time and distance in the motor way during a crossing. Curb extensions typically have the added effect of slowing down turning vehicles, since the curb radius of an extension is smaller than a standard return.
Design considerations include right-of-way widths, presence of in-street drainage infrastructure, impacts to on-street parking (although they can also shield on-street parking if the extension is at least seven feet from the edge of curb), and accommodations for landscaping or other amenities (typically minimal or under two feet in height to maintain good sight lines). Pedestrian crossing signs (W11-2, or paired with down-angle arrow W16-7P) are commonly provided in advance of curb extensions, particularly if they are constructed in relatively isolated locations.
Figure 27 – Curb Extension/Bulb-out Source: NACTO
Figure 26 – Best Practices for
Curb Extensions Source: NACTO
C.12 August 2015
Bike Box
Bike boxes are a safety feature that promotes bicyclist visibility and assists with bicycle through
and left-turn movements. Bike boxes should be installed at signalized intersections along marked
bicycle routes, especially where two-way cycle tracks create complex maneuvers.
Bike boxes allow a bicyclist to move to the front of the queue and become more visible to all
traffic. Bike boxes also allow a bicyclist to clear the intersection first and indicate to drivers that it
is acceptable for a bicyclist to jump to the front of the queue.
Design considerations for bike boxes include sight distance triangles, vertical sight lines in advance of the bike box, heavy motor vehicle left-turning movements, and interfaces with high-volume driveways. Reinforcing the correct stopping position for motor vehicles is important, with the STOP bar often accompanied by a STOP HERE ON RED (MUTCD R10-4) sign.
Figure 29 – Example of Bike Box at Woodglen Drive &
Nicholson Lane, Montgomery County
Figure 28 – Best Practices for
Bike Boxes
August 2015 C.13
Crosswalks
Reviewing the MdMUTCD definition of a crosswalk is insightful:
(a) that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral
lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or in the
absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway, and in the absence of a
sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part of a roadway included within the extension of
the lateral lines of the sidewalk at right angles to the center line; (b) any portion of a
roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated as a pedestrian crossing by
pavement marking lines on the surface, which might be supplemented by contrasting
pavement texture, style, or color.
Crosswalk markings can be at mid-block locations, but are most often at intersections. High-visibility crosswalks have thicker crossbars than the typical “ladder” style, with the most minimal (and commonplace) markings simply consisting of two, 4” parallel lines extending from curb to curb. Higher visibility crosswalks, including colored pavements, should be considered in locations where there is potential or evidence of many vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
Figure 30 – Crosswalk Markings Piano stripe Crosswalks (left) provide better visibility to approaching motorists; Crosswalk in Washington, DC (right)
C.14 August 2015
Figure 32 – Best Practices for Crosswalks
Figure 31 – Crosswalk Signing Highly visible R1-6a signs are effective for uncontrolled crossings.
August 2015 C.15
Accessible Pedestrian Signal / Countdown Pedestrian Signal
Accessible pedestrian signal and countdown pedestrian signal (APS/CPS) upgrades are easily
justifiable. Generally, intersections will include CPS; however, a number of intersections have not
been upgraded to include ADA-compliant push button assemblies. The MdMUTCD now
recommends that push buttons be located within a specific distance of the ramp landing area
and installed for each crosswalk. A typical four-legged intersection with four crosswalks would
require eight push button assemblies. Ideally, push buttons should be located within the reach
of a person seated in a wheelchair waiting within the landing area of the curb ramp.
Figure 33 – Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) Audible push button assembly (top, left); Standard
push button plaque (top, right); Push button locations per MdMUTCD (bottom).
Figure 34 – Countdown Pedestrian Signal
(CPS) Walk phase (top, left); Don’t start phase (top,
right); full progression per MdMUTCD (bottom).
R10-3(1)
C.16 August 2015
Pedestrian Actuated Signal
Pedestrian actuated signals are appropriate on high volume, multi-lane roadways where there is
a moderate to high demand for uncontrolled pedestrian (or bicycle) crossings. Pedestrian
actuated signals operate with flashing yellow beacons until a push button is activated. When
the push button is activated by a pedestrian, the flashing yellow beacon progresses to solid
yellow and/or then solid red. A traffic signal warrant study should be performed to confirm the
need for this improvement.
Figure 35 – Examples of Pedestrian Signals Located in College Park, MD (left, Source: Greg Dohler/The Gazette) and Silver Spring, MD (right)